Bombers wait for resolution ... the ASADA interim report into supplements at Essendon may not tell us whether individual players were given prohibited substances.

Getty Images: Mark Dadswell

If the Essendon football club was a cycling team, or a former eastern bloc nation, how might they be viewed in the media?

Would the players be portrayed as well-meaning athletes who trusted their coaching and medical staff to administer them a cutting edge range of supplements so they could recover more rapidly and perform at their best, or would they be viewed more sceptically as dopers?

While Australia's sporting fraternity awaits the AFL's response to ASADA's interim report into the club's drug program, the public and media have focussed almost exclusively on the role of coach James Hird and club staff, not the players' culpability.

Why?

Well, in the eyes of former ASADA chief Richard Ings, the two processes are completely separate - Hird and Essendon's woes are entirely separate to the question of whether players doped.

"The interim report, together with Ziggy Switkowski's report into Essendon's governance practices go to one question," he says, "that is essentially, have there, or have there not, been infractions of the AFL code for bringing the game into disrepute?"

That's a question which AFL chief Andrew Demetriou told Fairfax radio this morning is for the league's lawyers to answer.

"The general counsel makes the decision whether there are any charges to be laid and if that is the case, they will notify the AFL commission who will then set about outlining a date for a hearing," Demetriou told 3AW.

Denying speculation that negotiations over penalties like fines, or loss of premiership points and draft picks are already underway, Demetriou added, "but we're not at that point...there are lawyers talking to lawyers about process, it's terribly important that they do that particularly with issues around natural justice, the timeframe, the report, what details are to be made public."

That's because this is of course, an interim report.

ASADA's policy is to not talk or speculate about individuals during the process as Australian legislation ensures that an athlete or support person has their privacy protected while a matter is being reviewed.

That 'process' is the second question Richard Ings referred to - whether or not individual players doped.

That question is far from settled.

Establishing a doping case

There are two ways of establishing a doping case - a positive drug test, or what anti-doping authorities refer to as a 'non-analytical matter'- i.e non-scientific proof.

For example, X & Y corroborating an allegation that Z took a certain substance, exactly the same way a criminal court would rely on witness testimony to jail someone for a violent crime.

So far there's been no evidence any Essendon player has actually failed a drug test.

That means ASADA's investigation falls into the latter category, putting the onus on officials to prove that players took banned substances.

Essendon captain Jobe Watson says he took AOD-9604.

Some defence lawyers believe the fact the substance wasn't prohibited by name may exculpate him, but the consensus is that it is illegal - under a catch-all rule banning anything not approved for therapeutic use.

But even that admission, according to Richard Ings, is not enough.

"He thought it was AOD-9604, but is that what the syringe actually contained?" Ings asks.

"The argument will be, that's what's on the (consent) form, but this could be a vitamin for all we know."

History suggests this case will drag on

There's a rather infamous recent precedent suggesting this kind of investigation won't be done and dusted anytime soon.

US anti-doping authorities patiently built their non-analytical case against Lance Armstrong and over a period of years, not months.

Just over a week ago, ASADA's new coercive powers came into effect.

It can now demand athletes attend interviews and hand over records of text messages and emails, or risk massive fines.

You can be sure that in a case this high profile, it'll now be using them.

The burden of proof required means this investigation is more akin to a criminal one than a simple question of whether football has suffered.

It may be in the AFL's interest to punish Essendon and Hird before the finals, but don't expect the players' guilt or innocence decided before season's end.